Absolute exemption and input credit: Gujarat HC treats Section 5A(1A) as substantive, allowing duty payment before the amendment.

An assessee could opt to pay duty on goods covered by an absolute exemption and still claim Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs, because Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not, before insertion of sub-section (1A), prohibit that course. The court treated the levy-credit chain as revenue neutral and held that denial of credit after payment of duty was unsustainable. It further held that insertion of Section 5A(1A), though introduced in language suggesting removal of doubts, materially altered the legal position by prohibiting duty payment on absolutely exempt goods, and was therefore substantive and prospective, not clarificatory or retrospective.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could forego an absolute exemption under the exemption notifications, pay duty on the exempted final products, and claim Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs; (ii) whether insertion of sub-section (1A) in Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is clarificatory and retrospective, or substantive and prospective.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could forego an absolute exemption under the exemption notifications, pay duty on the exempted final products, and claim Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs.

Analysis: Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 empowered exemption by notification, but did not, prior to insertion of sub-section (1A), prohibit an assessee from paying duty on exempted goods and seeking input credit under the applicable credit rules. The levy and credit chain in the facts of the case resulted in revenue neutrality, and denial of credit after payment of duty would have defeated the exemption regime while still collecting duty from the manufacturer.

Conclusion: The assessee had the option to pay duty on the exempted final products and claim Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs, and the contrary demand was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether insertion of sub-section (1A) in Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is clarificatory and retrospective, or substantive and prospective.

Analysis: A provision described as being inserted "for removal of doubts" is not automatically retrospective. The later insertion materially changed the legal position by declaring that, where an absolute exemption is granted, the manufacturer shall not pay duty on such goods. That change enlarged the restriction and altered the earlier position, and therefore could not be treated as a mere clarification.

Conclusion: The insertion of Section 5A(1A) was substantive in nature and operated prospectively.

Final Conclusion: The demand and denial of credit could not be sustained on the footing that the exemption was mandatory in the earlier period, and the appeal succeeded with the questions of law answered for the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment that changes the legal regime and imposes a new restriction cannot be treated as clarificatory merely because it uses the phrase "for removal of doubts"; where no prior statutory prohibition existed, the assessee may opt to pay duty on exempted goods and claim input credit until the substantive change takes effect.

---